He never said this. What he did say is, "No one should be discouraged, Theaetetus, who can make constant progress, even though it be slow."
This could hardly be further from the truth.
Your response is a pile of lies and codependence and control. There is no "we." I don't "have to" do anything. I did not "go after" Primal. I'm not interested in your unsolicited, controlling and codependent advice to do anything, let alone write my congressman.
That's why they LOVE human slavery.
It's amazing how a journey of intimacy leads to abundance.
AI, like money, is an amplifier of desired outcomes.
If you want to be dumber, it will help you get dumber.
If you want to be smarter, it will help you get smarter.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Light in, light out.
This is the same way the universe/reality works.
Sure. nostr:nprofile1qqst4qyeqenw7zm0fwjsty68h6cnys5jre2xd8ngqpjv5a2j26s78fspzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujucm0d9hx7uewd9hj75a0pev would do the trick. Then just connect it to Primal via NWC.
But when it comes to Primal's built-in wallet, provided by Strike, the need for KYC isn't going to change unless they remove the ability to buy sats with fiat from the wallet and they switch wallet providers away from Strike. I don't see them being inclined to do either.
Dikaios1517, money is deeper than laws, and laws are what's forcing KYC. Since Bitcoin is freedom money, eventually, the laws that require KYC will be repealed, and then Primal, if it's still around, will be able to have a non-KYC Bitcoin/lightning wallet. It's only a matter of time.
It's fun watching someone else reason from the first principles of reality.
The point Jeff is making here is, "No system is better than it's incentives."
People ask, "What backs Bitcoin?"
Even though it's abstract, the answer is, superior incentives.
No person, group, society, nation, world, is better than their perceived incentives.
Without people, in some sense, Bitcoin ceases to exist. Bitcoin runs on energy, from people, because people are what connects the abstract system of Bitcoin to the energy of nature and spirit that make it run.
Why, fundamentally, are people willing to invest their lives into Bitcoin (and Nostr) to make them work to create the vision of the future they imagine?
Because it gives them a TRUE and ENDURING sense of Meaning.
And when you connect with Meaning, you're connecting to God Himself, the center of all things, the origin and propagator of consciousness, the One who is Goodness, eternally.
Or, your life becomes what you imagine and pay attention to.
Thank you for clarifying.
"Why did you stop using Nostr"
https://old.reddit.com/r/nostr/comments/1josljh/stop/
> it's an annoying fucking echo chamber of mostly crypto-bros mostly jerking each other off. with a dash of keto pics, and neonazi memes, oh and constant "GM" messages". I think it's hilarious how unaware most of the users on there think they'll "succeed"
Uhhh, I'd like to roast the losers who think like this, from Reddit, but instead of that I think I'll just say, we are so early.
nostr:note1yqhtsjru7gc9xqss2snzhtdmsdq2298jsxh3zsplfsfmj8npl8es8hpke8
Isn't it funny how decentralization works, and centralization doesn't work?
If Trump REALLY wants to bring jobs, sort of, back to America, he would commission about 1000 or more nuclear/geothermal power plants, because energy is and will become the fundamental limitation/support to human flourishing and prosperity, from a physics and economics and technological perspective. Bitcoin and AI and meaning in decentralized pockets of society and governance while couples raise large families, is the future.
nostr:note16eg9qrvzdljxq9y6s04upcm6y2j08fxthtlkahf7kyr366tkp02qhsw077
So my amazing wife wrote a post that brought together the ideas of Bitcoin and AI, perhaps, and what people will do when they no longer need to work because of AI putting them out of a job and Bitcoin giving them generational wealth in some sense.
Then her post blew up and got zapped hard! Well done babe!
Her post is worth reading.
nostr:npub1ww8hsuav93ktwuq7x9gxz6husfphnvfjk3nm5k5y982evjh3kymqh4wakr
Your article says that "one source" says that Maya has disdain for her country's poor, without naming the source explicitly, which makes the accusation seem low credibility and like gossip. So it's saying you have evidence she disdains the country's poor, without revealing it. Or, "We have receipts, believe us." If a source is going to make a negative assertion, they shouldn't get to hide behind anonymity.
"one source told Bitcoin Magazine that she has disdain for the country’s poor." We have receipts, believe us.
He speaks clearly very often. I'm not sure why you're, in the best case, exaggerating about his apparent inability to be clear.
Speaking about deep ideas is what he does on a regular basis.
I think he's speaking very clearly.
If a person aims at God, God answers your prayers.
If a person aims at envy, envy answers your prayers.
So on and so forth.
